Volt Buyers 'Idiots'? Audi President Is The One Who's Wrong

We were going to let it slide, really. Just because the U.S. president of a major automaker calls the buyers of another carmaker's product "idiots" is no reason for us to sink to name calling.

But the hoohah has continued, and the misunderstandings seem to be growing. We thought it was time to contribute a few facts and some actual data to the uproar.

Electric cars? For "idiots"

Two days ago, MSN Autos quoted Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen telling reporter Laurence Ulrich that the 2011 Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle was "a car for idiots."

He based his argument on two points: The Volt will never pay back its extra cost in fuel savings, and plug-in cars that run on electricity would "result in a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions" because much of the American grid "relies on dirty coal."

The first is just his guess, based on price rumors. And on the second, sadly, he is just flat-out wrong.

(Audi has since been doing damage control and de Nysschen claims he misspoke. More on that below.)

On his second point, that electric cars would increase CO2 emissions compared to diesels, de Nyscchen is absolutely wrong.

A recent study of the U.S. market shows that how green a plug-in is depends on where it's plugged in. But a mile driven on electricity always produces less CO2 than driving that same mile in a 25-mile-per-gallon gasoline car. Always.

And the same applies to diesel at slightly lower levels--say 20 miles per gallon--since diesel engines are more efficient per gallon (and hence emit less carbon) than gasoline engines.

Extreme case: Dirtiest grid

If you're comparing to a 50-mpg gasoline car (say, the 2010 Toyota Prius), or a 40-mpg diesel car (say, the new 2010 Audi A3 TDI), then you need to know more about your local grid.

In states with very dirty (or "high-carbon") power, that 50-mpg 2010 Prius or 40-mpg A3 TDI emits slightly less carbon on a full "wells to wheels" basis than it would if powered on electricity.

In Wyoming or North Dakota, for instance, the power is largely from burning coal and hence exceptionally dirty. Making a kilowatt-hour of electricity generates more than 1,000 grams of CO2, or twice the national average. There, the Prius or A3 TDI is a better bet.

The American and Japanese competition face delays as the Germans have the segment to themselves

Great write-up of this side of the matter - and some very strong points on emissions, in particular.
I do think there's an element of two ships passing in the night, however - de Nysschen warns of the strain of a quick transition to electrics and plug-ins, while you counter that the adoption rate will be slow enough to let the grid adapt. Those points aren't wholly contradictory, if you think about it.
And I do think there might be a problem with every American adding 4 plasma TVs to their house in a short period of time.
A real problem lies in the geography of early adoption, too. California is already near-maximum on its power demands, but would likely have the highest number of early EV buyers as well.
But these are all issues that are important to hash out, as they affect us all, and this is a great forum for doing it.

Wally
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:56am PDT

So, an auto manufacturer gets pedantic and sloppy and Greencarreports responds by ... getting pedantic and sloppy? Where is the data to support the notion that prices won't go up as grids get strained? Where is your data about having to fuel diesel cars by big rigs? Where is the data to support your refutation of Johan's main message; that hybrids simply cost more than diesels due to upfront and disposal costs?
1. California almost went broke because of power price surges and many poor people face cold winters due to rising power prices. Demand goes up and prices go up - If EPRI did not find that, then up is down.
2. Diesel fueling stations are very common in the U.S. and as soon as more diesels arrive (e.g. 335D, A3, Jetta), then they will be everywhere.
3. Johan's main contention is still unrefuted. High upfront cost hybrids and electrics are much more expensive than other small, poor driving econo boxes and those hybrids are equivalent in cost to own of far better driving diesels. Johan's main message is legit: why drive a sluggish, noisy, teetering Prius, when for a similar overal cost to own, you could drive an A3 or Jetta with a similar climate footprint?
The only logical thing is raise gas fees so that we can have wonderful CURRENTLY produced diesels and eventually some better electrics and hybrids. Why is it only the commenters here see both sides?

Robert
Posted: 11/14/2013 5:12pm PST

I like that you did some research, but it wasn't thorough. Did you factor in the environmental impact of the manufacture of the batteries for those electric vehicles, and the cost to replace those batteries when they fail in a decade or less, or the environmental impact of disposing and recycling of those batteries? I doubt it.

Had you, you would have seen that an electric vehicle's environmental impact is much worse than just using electricity. In the end, this Audi guy is probably spot-on even if he didn't know it.